|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 97)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
You can start around 9 mins in. If this is asking to much your obviously ignoring the truth about this fact.
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
ill get around to it.
and dude, i wasnt kidding. im at work (no net at home currently) so i really dont have the time to invest in videos that long. so stop being a rude prick as if i havent done a whole lot more research of your nutjob theories than you have of any "official" analysis.
lol @ "ignoring the truth".
6 years and counting and still nothing. but ill watch those vids when i can. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i cant actually hear anything on my work PC other than the actual lecturer.
but it was great to see the old fallacies coming out again! en lol. nice to see the loose change video. hahahaha. what a joke that is.
also wonderful to see thermite rear its ugly head again! seriously, these guys need to research a little more.
there are lots of reasons why thermite didnt bring the towers down.
1) the sheer volume of thermite. we're talking dozens of thousands of pounds of thermite, somehow snuck into the WTC buildings and put into preparation without anyone noticing. a task that would have taken MONTHS.
2) thermite is chaotic (see your own vid). there is no thermite that can cut steel pillars in a way that could be timed perfectly to bring a building down. thermite has NEVER been used in controlled demolition for this reason. it is too unpredictable. it is mainly used by the military to destroy equipment, because its good at that. cutting support pillars, in a controlled and predictable way just isnt possible.
3) thermite is also ignited by heat (a match-lit fuse would be fine). there is NO way that thermite could have maintained its dormant state in an environment that was on as much fire as WTC1&2. its just not possible. the heat would have ignited it immediately after the impact & explosion.
simply put, these non demolition experts dont understand their explosive of choice. there still hasn't been a likely explosive type suggested by the theorists that adequately explains the nature of the collapses.
one would think that would be their first priority?? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
here's a more intensive analysis if you care.
| quote: |
Eye-witness accounts of the presence of molten metal at high temperatures in the basement rubble of the Twin Towers and WTC7 have led Jones to speculate that the industrial compound thermite was responsible, and is hence evidence for the CD theory.
Jones: “I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”
But thermite is an incendiary, a vastly different product to HMX and RDX which are military explosives like TNT that can be used in civilian demolition projects. Thermite is a slow-burning product in comparison, does not explode, and, as far as I can determine, is never used in demolition of buildings. It can be used to melt horizontal pieces of steel, because it produces molten iron at up to 2,500 degrees centigrade, which flows onto the target and melts it. It cannot be used to melt vertical structures, because the molten iron simply flows past the target. Thermite is used to quietly destroy military equipment such as artillery (by inserting it down an up-pointing barrel), but more regularly in construction, for example, to weld rails together.
Hence the CD theory is not supported by the quantities of molten metal, because thermite in its conventional form is useless in demolition: it is slow-burning, with unpredictable time to melt, and can only be used in direct contact with horizontal unclad steel beams / components. (The horizontal steel members in the Twin Towers were covered by at least 4 inches of concrete.) Prototype thermite cutter torches have been developed which could cut steel at any angle, but they work by producing as stream of high-velocity, high-temperature combustion products. Any iron produced by such a cutter would be dispersed as as droplets and would only in exceptional circumstances pool into any significant quantities of molten iron. It is more likely that a film of iron particles, mixed with aluminium oxide particles, would be deposited on nearby surfaces. However this is speculation on my part as I cannot find any reference to commercially available thermite cutter torches. If anyone can provide information on such devices I would be pleased to hear from them. Nano-thermites, mentioned by Jones, are also ruled out because they operate more like an explosive, and so would disperse iron particles as I suggest above. The thermite lance, a variant that uses a long iron tube with aluminium rods running through it, is ruled out as far as I can tell because it would require an operative.
HMX or RDX on the other hand, which can be used in demolition (though TNT seems to be more common), would not melt steel, because the high energy content of the material is released in very short timescales, designed, not to melt the target, but to fracture it.
Jones: “Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites. The observations are consistent with the use of thermite or one of its variants.”
In the photograph provided there is only one white blob on the left-most extremity of the upper structure. Grayish white plumes seem to come from the whole structure, not the blob, and could be any kind of ash or powder. There is no significant resemblance either to the plumes emitted from the bag of thermite in Jones’s accompanying photo. Indeed the plumes in the WTC photo are indistinguishable from the billowing clouds of dust and debris around them.
More easily visible, and the subject of debate, is the stream of what looks like molten metal running from WTC 2 just below the impact zone.
Jones: “Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability.”
To rule out aluminium so quickly is poor science, because we don’t know what the temperatures were in the impact zone, while we do know that many metric tonnes of aluminium constituting the plane were in the area just above the outflow of molten metal. Of course, the alternative hypothesis, that the molten metal was iron or steel, should be also considered carefully. The argument of Jones is that if the molten metal were steel, then it would support the CD theory. But the link between molten steel and controlled demolition is non-existent, as thermite is not used in controlled demolition. Hence Jones requires a variation on controlled demolition: controlled demolition plus the use gratuitous and incompetent use of thermite. We have to believe that the conspirators had researched controlled demolition so badly as to decide on the use of thermite. Now, Jones estimates that “Roughly 2,000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges” would be sufficient to bring the building down, and such a quantity of explosive might conceivably have been hidden in each of the towers. But the quantity of thermite required to produce this stream of molten metal is much greater. 107 Kg of thermite is required to produce 54 Kg of molten iron, and the stream of molten metal flowing from the impact zone (if iron) has been estimated at thousands of kilograms. Even if the stream is only 1,000 kg of iron, then 2,000 kg, or two metric tonnes, of thermite would be required. But the CD hypothesis implies much more than this. For a start the thermite would have been distributed over the proposed target floor for initial collapse, so it would be very difficult for the molten iron products to pool in one place and pour out. Secondly, the CD hypothesis agrees that the floor(s) of impact of the plane could not have been exactly predicted, so every, say, 5 floors, another couple of metric tonnes of thermite would be required. (Jones: ‘… to make it appear that the planes somehow initiated the collapse; cutter-charges could have been pre-placed at numerous spots in the building, since one would not know exactly where the planes would enter.’) Even if only the top half of the building were so prepared, then we would anticipate 2 metric tonnes x 11 locations or 22 tonnes. If the mass of stream of molten metal were estimated at more like 10,000 kg of iron then the figure goes up to 220 tonnes of thermite. We have to believe (a) that the conspirators were ignorant enough to attempt to use thermite, and (b) could insinuate between 22 and 220 tonnes of thermite, plus charges, plus radio firing systems, into each tower.
If in addition, thermite is required by the CD hypothesis to account for the molten steel in the basement after collapse, then we have to add an addition two tonnes of thermite for every tonne of molten iron. The problem for the CD theory is in fact that no reliable estimates exist of the amount of molten metal, if any, in the basements.
To sum up, it is a tough job to for the CD hypothesis to account for the stream of molten metal as iron produced from thermite reaction because (a) the choice of thermite requires the conspirators to be incompetent, (b) pooling of the molten iron would require the odd concentration of thermite on a given floor in one location, and (c) the quantity needed (22-220 tonnes) would be hard to smuggle in and hide in the building. This quantity increases by two tonnes per every tonne of molten steel estimated to be in the basements.
The IF hypothesis suggests that the molten metal is aluminium (and other alloys used in plane construction), and that it pooled in that location because that is where the plane was. As Jones rightly point out however, the IF hypothesis would require the molten aluminium (and alloys) to attain temperatures several hundred degrees above melting point. The IF hypothesis also requires that the molten steel in the basement have been heated by a combination of fire and mgh energy, so much rests on estimates of those factors.
I want to add a hypothesis that may yet explain the high temperatures, and would need to be disproved by the CD theorists: that some of the aluminium in the planes was ignited on impact. I return to this issue later on.
|
source |
|
|
| culorut |
Amazing, all that and you still do not explain why there was molten metal under all the buildings. WTC1/WTC2 and WTC3.
Of course no plane hit WTC7 so something which gets very hot melted the steel.
Explosives. Yep. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
well, theres the obvious answer- that a building on fire produces molten metal. theres also the tonnes of aluminium from either plane for 1&2.
the difference being, that the explosive answer DOESN"T provide an explanation (as ive already posted) of what caused the molten metal. no explosive known to any expert ive read can begin to explain that.
so saying that i am not explaining the cause isn't particularly genuine considering the explosive hypothesis does not either.
but, here is an explanation if you can be bothered. im not an expert so cant really comment
iron burns!
and again, you (and nobody else) has identified the pools of metal found at ground zero as steel. and none of you have posited which explosive actually MELTS steel. coz thats not how explosives work.
im sorry, but you have to provide a real, workable alternative if youre going to argue explosives did it. there isn't any evidence of explosives. none. molten steel (even if it is steel) does not equal explosives. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
here is a video showing how hot aluminium reacts to plaster.
and here we have (more) evidence of steven jones being less than honest.
| quote: |
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know. |
thermite |
|
|
| culorut |
Who's talking about molten aluminum metal from the planes?
The molten metal which was present under WTC1 and WTC2 (at least 4-5 stories below ground) has not been explained. NIST does not cover it in their report and is on the record as denying it was there completely.
WTC7 is an entire different story, no plane to produce the molten metal but yet the molten metal was flowing underground exactly like WTC1 and WTC2.
Just because you cannot find out what kind of explosives might have been used does not mean they do not exist.
If they kept Area 51 under wraps for decades then they have some interesting weapons in the closet. The kind of weapons to take down buildings that is. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
oh come on, lets take this seriously! :rolleyes:
you can't postulate ficticious explosive devices that nobody has ever seen as some kind of panacea for your theories. youre creating mumbo-jumbo to justify your position.
you don't have a viable explosive in mind, thus you just invent one to suit your theory. that isn't particularly intellectually honest. in fact its quite the opposite.
also, you still havent stated why melted metal is of any particular significance? these buildings would have contained tonnes of various kinds of metals.
the onus is on the 9/11 truth movement to put forward a viable explosive known to be used in controlled demolitions. you haven't done this. you post a video regarding thermite, and i show you the many and varied reasons why it couldnt have been thermite.
you cant say "secret government explosive" as if that answers everything. this explosive would have to
A) be silent, at least compared to regular charges used in demolition
B) be immune to fire
C) be immune to severe damage either from planes or debris
D) somehow be responsible for melting metal in a way that causes complete structural failure at a desired time.
no explosive like that exists, unless you can point me towards one. arguing a secret unknown quantity isnt particularly convincing. |
|
|
| culorut |
Take it seriously?
NIST ignores that molten steel even existed and they bypassed WTC7 all together in their report.
Seems that the NIST and you are not taking it seriously. You state that no type of explosives or weapons exist but the truth is you really do not have a clue if they do or not.
Fact is the molten metal was present under all 3 world trade towers which came down ala controlled demolition, the government and only the government must be forced to answer these questions to the public.
Thermal Map of Ground Zero
One source of data is a thermal map of Ground Zero created from infrared data collected by a NASA plane that overflew the site on September 16. The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hotspots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700 Celsius. 2 After five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with water, they were still above the melting point of aluminum. The temperatures deep in the rubble pile, and their decline over time, can only be guessed. People living and working around the World Trade Center site, and for considerable distances downwind, had to cope with toxic odors for weeks after the attack.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...ubblefires.html |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
NIST ignores that molten steel even existed and they bypassed WTC7 all together in their report. |
no, go to the NIST site yourself. WTC7 report remains unfinished. they didnt "bypass" it.
and again, stop saying "steel" when you don't know it WAS steel.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
You state that no type of explosives or weapons exist but the truth is you really do not have a clue if they do or not. |
see, this is the difference between a highschool kid and a university graduate. we actually feel the need to support our claims with evidence, not posit some hypothesis and magically create some unknown substance to fill the massive holes in that hypothesis.
but for the record, i DO have a clue, in that no known explosive used by any civil engineering company acts the way in which the conspiracy theorists will it too. and let's not forget that all demolitions projects are undertaken by private demolitions firms.
its interesting that you will cling to "explosives in the towers", and are more likely to believe in some ficticious explosive that nobody knows about rather than what the world's experts agree upon. i find most of the 9/11 theories revolve around this type of academically unsupportable logic.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Fact is the molten metal was present under all 3 world trade towers which came down ala controlled demolition, the government and only the government must be forced to answer these questions to the public.
|
and you still havent provided me with what the molten metal means? why does molten metal equal explosive? you can't even postulate an explosive that would have created this molten metal. honestly, how can you believe in something so strongly, yet not be able to hazzard a guess on particulars? especially particulars THIS important?
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Thermal Map of Ground Zero
One source of data is a thermal map of Ground Zero created from infrared data collected by a NASA plane that overflew the site on September 16. The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hotspots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700 Celsius. 2 After five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with water, they were still above the melting point of aluminum. The temperatures deep in the rubble pile, and their decline over time, can only be guessed. People living and working around the World Trade Center site, and for considerable distances downwind, had to cope with toxic odors for weeks after the attack.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...ubblefires.html |
first off, what does this have to do with explosives? explosives, the kind that are used in demolitions, shatter buildings structure, they dont melt and burn anything. find me some demolition exercises that resulted in melted ANYTHING. it just doesn't happen.
secondly, explosives do not continue to work after being set off. theres no valid explanation for how explosives were what meant the building burned for weeks afterwards.
| quote: |
“Molten steel” in February, perhaps 5 months after the attacks? If it’s proposed that something like thermite/ thermate was responsible, then we can’t help wonder how much would be required to maintain high temperatures for so long. The advocates of controlled demolition don’t appear to have made any calculations in this area. And it’s not difficult to imagine why. |
source
thirdly, putting water on fire isn't always the best course of action, you could actually be adding fuel to the fire source
| quote: |
To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire. |
source
again, you would need to "flesh out" your argument as to why supposed molten metal is evidence of anything but a fire. and you must do so without resorting to "secret government explosive" |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | and again, stop saying "steel" when you don't know it WAS steel. |
Let's see maybe it was peanut butter then? Give me a break University graduate, LOL.
| quote: | | but for the record, i DO have a clue, in that no known explosive used by any civil engineering company acts the way in which the conspiracy theorists will it too. and let's not forget that all demolitions projects are undertaken by private demolitions firms. |
Controlled Demolitions Inc picked up the job to remove the evidence from ground zero. They shortly re-located outside the USA just like Halliburton has recently done, of course they have both made huge profits since 9/11. If they are doing so well in the US why have they left?
| quote: | | and you still havent provided me with what the molten metal means? why does molten metal equal explosive? you can't even postulate an explosive that would have created this molten metal. honestly, how can you believe in something so strongly, yet not be able to hazzard a guess on particulars? especially particulars THIS important? |
You are the one who stands by that the fires where hot enough to cause the metal to weaken and cause the collapses. It is well known that these fires where not hot enough to melt the metal so something obviously did, the molten metal is on the record I will add again.
Can't have both ways know can we University Graduate. :rolleyes:
And NO you do not have a clue. |
|
|
|
|
